Plain-Error Review after Erlinger: Eleventh Circuit Re-confirms the Defendant’s Burden to Show Prejudice on “Different-Occasions” Findings – Commentary on United States v. Karzarta Piett

Introduction

In United States v. Karzarta Piett, No. 23-13197 (11th Cir. July 30 2025) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed a multifaceted appeal arising out of a traffic stop that led to convictions for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellant Karzarta Piett challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop, (2) classification as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, (3) classification as an armed career criminal (ACCA), and (4) the district court’s different-occasions finding for ACCA purposes in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all grounds.

Although the opinion is designated DO NOT PUBLISH, it is significant for three reasons:

  1. It reiterates the post-Rodriguez/Campbell limits on traffic-stop prolongation and dog sniffs.
  2. It applies (and preserves) the Circuit’s holdings in United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Jackson, 55 F.4th 846 (11th Cir. 2022), as affirmed in Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024), thereby maintaining the broad definition of controlled substance offense and serious drug offense.
  3. Most importantly, it clarifies how plain-error review functions in ACCA cases after Erlinger: a defendant who failed to object below bears a heavy burden to show the error affected his substantial rights, and a remote temporal separation between prior offenses will ordinarily defeat that showing. This refinement of the post-Erlinger landscape is the chief doctrinal takeaway.

Summary of the Judgment

  • Motion to Suppress – Affirmed: The traffic-stop mission was ongoing when the canine unit arrived; the dog sniff did not prolong the stop, and the subsequent alert gave probable cause to search.
  • Career-Offender Enhancement – Affirmed: The 2003 Georgia marijuana conviction remains a controlled substance offense because Georgia law regulated marijuana at the time; Dubois controls.
  • ACCA Enhancement – Affirmed: The 1999 and 2003 Georgia marijuana convictions qualify as serious drug offenses under ACCA; the relevant federal schedules are those in effect at the time of the state offenses, per Jackson/Brown.
  • Erlinger Claim – Affirmed (Plain Error): Although the district court (not a jury) found that the four predicate offenses occurred on different occasions, the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice; the temporal and factual separation among the offenses was so pronounced that no reasonable jury could have found otherwise.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning turned almost entirely on prior precedent, illustrating the doctrine of stare decisis in action—especially important in sentencing jurisprudence:

  • United States v. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) and United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) – establish the three-part test for unlawful prolongation of a traffic stop. The panel applied those cases to hold that the dog sniff was contemporaneous with the mission, so no prolongation occurred.
  • United States v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) and United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2002) – supply the mixed standard of review and deference to district-court fact-finding on suppression matters.
  • United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024) – holds that the definition of controlled substance in U.S.S.G. §4B1.2 is pegged to the state schedules in effect at the time of the prior conviction. Piett’s 2003 marijuana conviction therefore counts.
  • United States v. Jackson, 55 F.4th 846 (11th Cir. 2022), aff’d sub nom. Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024) – pegs ACCA predicate analysis to the federal schedules in effect at the time of the state offense, foreclosing Piett’s hemp-exclusion argument.
  • Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) – requires jury determination of different occasions for ACCA enhancements. The panel acknowledged the error but applied plain-error review.
  • United States v. Rosales-Mireles, 585 U.S. 129 (2018) and United States v. Steiger, 99 F.4th 1316 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc) – define the third and fourth prongs of plain-error analysis and the defendant’s burden to show a reasonable probability of a different result.
  • United States v. Edwards, ___ F.4th ___, 2025 WL 1778784 (11th Cir. 2025) – reiterates that plain-error review applies to forfeited Erlinger claims.

Legal Reasoning

  1. Suppression Issue. • The mission of the stop was not complete; the driver had no valid license, and officers were lawfully waiting for a licensed driver. • The canine sniff occurred within this period. • Under Rodriguez/Campbell, no Rodriguez error existed; the dog’s alert supplied probable cause.
  2. Career-Offender Issue. • Employing Dubois, the panel looked to Georgia drug schedules in 2003. • Because marijuana was controlled (and included hemp) at that time, the conviction matched U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(b). • No Guideline mismatch existed.
  3. ACCA “Serious Drug Offense.” • Applying Jackson/Brown, the court referenced the 1999 and 2003 federal schedules—again including marijuana. • Georgia’s statutory definition matched, satisfying the categorical approach.
  4. Plain-Error Review of the “Different-Occasions” Finding. • The district court committed Erlinger error by finding different occasions without a jury. • The error was plain (second prong), but the defendant failed the third prong: he offered no plausible scenario under which a jury could reach a different conclusion given the large temporal gaps (1999, 2000, 2003, 2005) and the distinct factual nature of each crime. • Without prejudice, the appellate court declined to exercise its discretion to correct the error.

Potential Impact

The Piett decision consolidates a post-Erlinger framework for plain-error review in the Eleventh Circuit:

  • District courts can expect that unobjected-to different-occasions findings will rarely require resentencing where the prior convictions are separated by significant lapses of time or involve distinct factual circumstances.
  • Defendants must develop an affirmative record in the district court (or, failing that, on appeal) showing how a jury could reasonably treat the prior offenses as part of a single occasion.
  • Prosecutors may rely on Dubois and Jackson/Brown to defend Guideline and ACCA enhancements premised on pre-2018 marijuana convictions, notwithstanding the hemp carve-outs later introduced by the 2018 Farm Bill.
  • For law-enforcement practices, the case underscores that detaining an unlicensed driver while awaiting a licensed substitute is within the traffic-stop mission in Georgia, thereby avoiding suppression risks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Different-Occasions Clause (ACCA). ACCA’s 15-year minimum applies only if the defendant’s three prior serious drug or violent felonies occurred on separate occasions—i.e., they were distinct crimes, not part of one spree.
  • Plain-Error Review. When a defendant fails to object in the trial court, the appellate court will correct an error only if it is (1) error, (2) clear and obvious, (3) affects substantial rights (usually meaning a reasonable probability of a different outcome), and (4) seriously affects the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
  • Categorical Approach. The court compares the elements of the prior state statute to the federal definition, ignoring the facts of the defendant’s actual conduct. If the state statute sweeps more broadly, the conviction cannot serve as a predicate.
  • Traffic-Stop Mission. This includes addressing the traffic violation and related safety tasks (license check, warrant check, waiting for a licensed driver, etc.). Any unrelated activity that adds time violates the Fourth Amendment absent reasonable suspicion of new crimes.

Conclusion

United States v. Piett does not blaze new trails in published jurisprudence, yet it fortifies several emergent themes in federal criminal law:

  1. Dog-sniff jurisprudence after Rodriguez continues to turn on whether the sniff adds any time to the stop; here, it did not.
  2. The Eleventh Circuit remains steadfast that Guideline and ACCA predicates are assessed by reference to the drug schedules in force at the time of the prior conviction, not at the time of federal sentencing.
  3. After Erlinger, defendants must object timely to different-occasions findings; otherwise, they face an uphill—and often insurmountable—plain-error standard.

For practitioners, Piett is a cautionary reminder: preserve objections early, compile evidence demonstrating overlap among prior offenses if possible, and do not assume that hemp-related changes to marijuana law will defeat guideline or ACCA enhancements.